Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of February, 2008, are as follows:

BY VICTORY, J.: 2007-C -1014 KELLY G. AUCOIN, ET AL. v. SOUTHERN QUALITY HOMES,LLC, ET AL. (Parish of Iberia) For the reasons expressed herein, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT. KNOLL, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.

2/26/08

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 07-C-1014 KELLY G. AUCOIN, ET AL. versus SOUTHERN QUALITY HOMES, LLC, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF IBERIA VICTORY, J. We granted this writ application to determine whether the manufacturer of a mobile home is liable for redhibitory defects in the mobile home. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we find that the manufacturer is liable to the plaintiff for redhibitory defects existing at the time the mobile home was delivered to the seller and for appropriate damages thereunder. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kelly G. Aucoin ("plaintiff") purchased a mobile home and land from Southern Quality Homes, LLC (the "seller") on July 6, 2001 for $93,980.00. The mobile home had been delivered to Southern Quality Homes' lot by Dynasty Homes (the "manufacturer") in January, 2000. A pre-occupancy inspection report listed numerous defects in regard to the mobile home; however, Southern Quality Homes assured plaintiff they were minor and would be repaired. Plaintiff alleged that after the delivery and set-up of the mobile home, he and his wife, Cindy, began to experience problems with the home. The Aucoins contacted Southern Quality Homes and Dynasty Homes numerous times regarding these defects, and several attempts at repair were made by the manufacturer. Plaintiff ultimately filed suit against Southern Quality Homes and Dynasty

1

Homes, alleging redhibitory defects and seeking to hold the two defendants solidarily liable for recision of the sale, including the price of the land, damages and expenses.1 At trial, the plaintiff presented expert witness testimony that the principal defect in the home was a moisture problem that caused a proliferation of mold, and that the manufacturer was responsible for several defects that related to the infiltration of moisture, including improper installation of the vinyl vapor barrier, improper sealing of the marriage line, improper fastening and installation of the roof and roof shingles, improper installation of vinyl siding, and improper installation of drywall on the ceiling. The plaintiff also produced a document dated October 17, 2000, wherein Southern Quality Homes requested service from Dynasty Homes because the ceiling in the master bedroom had a leak and needed repair, indicating that defects relating to the moisture problem were present in the home when the home was delivered by the manufacturer to the seller. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, relying heavily on the above mentioned testimony of the plaintiff's expert witnesses. Specifically the trial court gave "great weight" to Ervin Ritter's2 testimony that the home had a moisture problem because the roof and the top plate were not sealed properly, which was a code violation, and that the marriage line between the two sections of the mobile home had not been properly sealed. The trial court also found Alexis Mallet's3 testimony "extremely well documented, thoroughly researched and based on sound construction

On November 26, 2002, plaintiff sent Dynasty and Southern Quality Homes written notice of the existence of redhibitory defects as required by La. C.C. art. 2522. The nonexclusive list of defects included: (1) sagging/deflection of the roof system; (2) improperly installed fasteners; (3) lack of eave strip at the edge of the roof; (4) vinyl siding is distorting around the perimeter; (5) improperly sealed sheathing under the mobile home: (6) vapor barrier installed incorrectly; and (7) ceiling drywall panels installed improperly.
2

1

Ritter was qualified as an expert in environmental and mechanical engineering.

Mallet was qualified as an expert in general construction, estimating, analysis of construction and design defects, building science, and mold remediation. 2

3

standards and entitled to a great deal of weight." The trial court found that "one of the main problems that Mr. Mallet noticed was that the roof and the siding had not been applied properly," and that of the 30 homes in the subdivision, this was the only one to sustain roof damage in Hurricane Rita, which the trial court found corroborated his testimony that the roof was not installed properly. In addition, when asked which party caused the air infiltration problems, Mr. Mallet testified as follows: Q. Okay. Air infiltration problems that you've testified to, those would not be anything the dealer did, that would be the manufacturer would it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. So you don't really see anything, anything in your finding that has any significant associations with anything the dealer did? A. Nothing of any significance. The trial court also credited Mr. Mallet's opinion that repairing the home would not be an option as the cost of repairs would greatly exceed the value of the home and noted that "this is the primary reason that the Court finds that the proper remedy for this redhibition suit is refund of entire purchase price."4 In addition, the trial court inspected the home and noted the following: "[t]he Court visually walked through the home at the request of all counsel and was especially troubled by the obvious condition of the siding having deflections or bowing, and the fact that the underside of the home had not been sealed properly. The Court was not able to get on the roof and look at the roof problems described by Mr. Mallet nor was the Court able to get in the attic and notice the improper sealing

In so ruling, the trial court stated that it was "convinced that in order to properly repair the home the detailed steps outlined by Mr. Mallet must be taken and the cost of those repairs will greatly exceed the value of the home." Mr. Mallet estimated the repair costs to be $92,738.43 and outlined the various defects and the party responsible for such defects as follows: improper application of vinyl siding

Download 2007-C-1014 KELLY G. AUCOIN, ET AL. v. SOUTHERN QUALITY HOMES,LLC, ET AL..pdf

Louisiana Law